Propaganda Techniques - Glittering Generalities
This is an age of marketing, where everyone is trying to sell you their shit (I'm not being figurative. They literally want to sell you their shit). They want to sell you their shit politics, their shit products, their shit whatever. Most sane people don't buy shit, but the best kind of marketing uses your base emotions and allegiances. These people use propaganda. Keep in mind that good people also use propaganda to sell whatever they're peddling. In this game, you kind of have to. So, I've decided to write a series to help people see through some of my favorite propaganda techniques. Also, we're going to keep this non political. As in, I'm going to attack the arguments, not the stances. Today we're going to talk about Glittering Generalties, possibly my favorite propaganda technique because it's so insideous. Everyone uses them. Obama got elected because he fought for "change." Many people spend their whole existence fighting for "equality." Fighting against propaganda is the "humane" thing to do. A glittering generality can best be described as something that everyone wants, but everyone has a different opinion on what it is, and different opinions on how to get there. It emotionally appeals to highly valued concepts, and by fighting against them, you're a selfish soulless monster. A glittering generality is an absolutely meaningless word and tells you nothing. It suits the meaning of the speaker. They may truly want "change" or "equality" or "freedom" or "truth" or "justice," but they can to change the word to suit them in the blink of an eye. Some glittering genealities are more powerful than others. Have you ever been sold something because it's "natural." Both arsenic and uranium are natural. Technically, "natural" means something not made by man. Legally, it means absolutely nothing. I could sell a sugary soda filled with a thousand chemicals and call it natural, legally. Human beings are a part of nature and everything they do is technically a part of natural. But calling your diabetes-causing food "all natural" sounds pretty good, doesn't it? Some glittering generalities do have technically true definitions, like "justice." Justice is someone getting punished for commiting a transgression. Punishment and transgression are subjective. How many times have you seen a politician fighting for the "common good"? These words probably mean a lot to you. Keep in mind that the eugenicist, the neo-nazi, and the caveman all have their own opinions on what "common good" and "justice" are. No, if you elect this politician on fighting for "justice" you're not fighting for what any of these assholes are fighting for (unless the politican is a eugenicist, neo-nazi, or a caveman). If you fight for "change" all you need to do is buy a different brand of juice than you usually do. Congratulations, you have succeeded in your quest for "change." That doesn't change the fact that everyone wants "change." If you don't want "change" then you're happy with the miserable status quo and you're a horrible person. You're a horrible person if you don't want "freedom" and "safety" and "equality" and "technical advancement" and "democracy" and "legacy" and "success" and blah blah blah blah blah. "I am fighting for equality." The great thing about "equality" is that everyone wants it, everyone has a different opinion on what that constitutes, and everyone has a different opinion on how to get there, but they are 100% sure that that is absolute "equality." Despite the fact that someone somewhere is probably going to get screwed in some way, shape, or form. I want "equality" and I'm sure that everyone in my audience wants "equality" or they're probably some kind of socially backwards monster. You need to ask for clarification, constantly. To the people who use glittering generalities, they become shorthand. Everything this politician does is for "freedom." Everything this activisit does is for "equality." And you know what, they might be right. But the problem comes from exclusion. They're not fighting for every cause for "freedom" or every cause for "equality." It's not feasible, possible, or in some cases, even logical. Not all glittering generalities are positive words either. It's going to be a "challenge." Yeah, it sounds tough, but it could mean a million soldiers dying and 20 trillion dollars of debt. Or it could be a really difficult game of chess. Both things constitute a "challenge." It's going to take "hard work." What do you mean by "hard work?" More taxes? Community service? Slavery? Dealing with having some freedoms revoked? All of those fall under the umbrella of "hard work." And yes, glittering generalties can be shorthand for "the enemy." If we don't do this thing, then "the communists" win. This collides a lot with another propaganda technique, simply called "name-calling." It's a lot more sophisiticated than playground school bullying. It's when culture or politicians invents or builds the concept of some horrible people or thing, and then places anyone who disagrees with them under that title. Only horrible monsters don't want "future potential." If you don't support the war then you're clearly a "hippie." It's a part of our "national pride" to conquer. (Name-calling can get a lot worse than this, as I'll get to in a later post). With glittering generalties anything can mean anything. Using them you will always meet your goals under someone's definition. They tell us nothing about you, or who you stand for, or what you want. If someone ever uses a glittering generality, you should definitely ask for clarification. There's a large chance that they—intentionally or not—are supporting something entirely different than what you think that word means. Besides the examples, or having a list, how do you figure out what's a glittering generality? A glittering generality is usually abstract. You can come up with a picture of the concept of "peace," but you've got to do a large amount of the work yourself. If you ask someone else what they think of what this word would be like, you're largely going to get a different picture (some commonalities aside). Remember, Thomas Moore's Utopia had slavery. Even if you do agree on what "peace" would be like, changes are you can find a difference in opinion on how to get there. Or you know... you could just look at the words that pop out the most in advertising, or the words that a politician says more than any other. Many of the "appeal fallacies" are the consequence of glittering generalities. "It's natural" (Natural things can be both good and bad). "It's traditional" (Traditions can be both good and bad). "It's new" (New things can be both good and bad). I can't make a complete list of this, because that would probably use every abstract word in the dictionary. It doesn't really matter, since I've used the ones that I see here most often. Remember, just because someone ends up using a glittering generality doesn't mean that they're evil or trying to trick you into buying snake oil. However, the people that are evil or are trying to sell you snake oil will have to use propaganda techniques. Next time, I dunno "angelization and demonization." Sound good? Category:Miscellaneous